Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments 157D, 157F, 164K, 165A and 166A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope. The last of those amendments, if accepted by the Government, would go a long way to reassuring us on the points raised by the other amendments. That amendment may look slightly eccentric, as it would move the clause about sustainability up to the start of this part of the Bill. Clause 80, as it is now, may not be an afterthought, but it reads that way. The rubric says that it is supplementary to particular provisions, but in no way is it secondary when one looks at the issues in the round. It would do much to confirm what the Government have been saying about the place of sustainability if it were part of the introduction to this part of the Bill rather than coming in at the tail end. Amendment No. 157C would change the reference to "sustainable economic growth", policies for which are to be set out in the regional strategy, to, ""sustainable economic development and regeneration"." In other words, it would change the word "growth" to "development and regeneration". The words have different connotations, or at least different nuances, "growth" implying that sustainable development, which this should be, must encompass growth. I prefer development and regeneration, which is what we are about. Amendment No. 157D would add to the requirement for policies in relation to sustainable growth or development and policies in relation to the development and use of land a requirement for, ""policies in relation to the protection and enhancement of the environment and social welfare of the region"." That continues my argument that all the aspects of sustainability should be recognised and that the regional strategies should be rounded. The Minister at the previous stage resisted the term "sustainable development" in this part of the Bill for technical reasons—in planning terms, "development" has a special meaning—she and we are persuaded of the importance of the other policy areas. My argument therefore is that they should be interwoven and melded together and that the third area of the protection and enhancement of the environment and social welfare should be included. When preparing for today, I was sure that I had got that wording from somewhere, but I could not remember where; it is either in a government document or possibly in a statute somewhere. Amendment 157F requires consistency between the policies. This is not a frivolous point. The policies should be consistent, and, therefore, economic policy should not outstrip the others—or the other way around. In this Bill, I am so aware of the dangers of economic policies taking priority instead of being set in their proper context. Amendment 164K would require—after a period in Grand Committee one misses having a table to rest papers on—that a plan must, ""deliver sustainable growth, using a full range of social, environmental and economic indicators"." That is pretty much the same argument. Amendment 165A is about the regional development agencies. This is one amendment that would not be satisfied by transposing Clause 80. In Committee, I tabled the same amendment to provide that the regional development agencies’ remit and responsibilities should be updated. I see that the same typo, which did not come from me, has been repeated. I am sure that the Minister recognises that it should read "section 4(1)" and not "section 41(1)". The purposes should extend not just to "economic development" but to "sustainable economic development". In having regard to issues of sustainability, each RDA should think more widely than its own region. In Committee, the Minister told me that was not necessary but, increasingly, I see the paragraph in the 1998 Act as too limited. Thinking has moved on. The amendment uses the phrase, ""where it is relevant to its area"." It is possible that an RDA could come up with a scheme that is economically advantageous to its own area but would have an impact on another area. The Government’s consultation on the proposals to reform regional planning acknowledged that the RDAs would need to undergo significant change in what they did and how they operated. I agree with that, but I do not think that the changes are adequately reflected in the Bill. The RDAs will have to work across boundaries. At previous stages, I have mentioned carbon emissions and the wider climate change agenda, which are obvious. Since tabling the amendment, I have learnt from the CPRE that it carried out work in partnership with WWF and Friends of the Earth on the sustainability of the regional strategies—in other words, the work that has been undertaken so far. They noted that the regional spatial strategies and the regional economic strategies across all regions would have—do have, I suppose—a significant combined cumulative negative impact on some environmental resources. They tell me that policies on air and road transport and on water resources were of particular concern. Each region has developed strategies that it thinks have relatively minor negative impacts, but, taken together, they have considerable significance. If our country is to move towards sustainable development, the regions cannot operate in isolation from one another. Secondly, the Government have confirmed that the economic prosperity boards can be formed from local authorities that work across regional boundaries. The EPBs are likely to work with RDAs. However, in order to ensure that the RDAs can work with the new bodies to enable sustainable economic growth, their purpose must be altered in the way that I propose. The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 required each agency to, ""contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area to do so"." This suggests that there is no obligation to contribute to sustainable development unless it is relevant to its own area. That in turn suggests that there may be instances where it is not relevant: that cannot be so. I beg to move.